Smoker-Only Areas in Privately Owned Businesses: Yes or No?

[Revoltingest]

Anyone who is saying that you choose to work in such an environment is pretty lucky. I used to live in a place with a 50% unemployment rate, and you couldn't say no to any job. The laws that keep people from being exposed to cigarette smoke are there to protect people who can't protect themselves. The greatest yardstick for measuring any society is how it treats those who cannot protect themselves. Make it illegal.

Fortunately, we have far more freedom than Canuckistanians.
We needn't adopt such oppressive laws, even if they do serve you.

And who protects you from the horror of poutine, pemmican, & Red Green, eh?

 

[Revoltingest]

And my thesis is that employers often have significant power to coerce their employees - often in subtle ways - so we shouldn't come to these sorts of questions assuming that the employee in the scenario is making a completely free choice.

Even if a manager publicly says that nobody has to work in the smoking area who doesn't want to, it's not unreasonable for a server to think that being willing to work in the smoking area might translate into more shifts.

As an analogy, it's a breach of ethics codes (and downright illegal in some places, IIRC) for a psychiatrist to sleep with a patient, even an adult patient who is fully capable of informed consent. This isn't a declaration that the patient (or doctor) is like a child; it's an acknowledgement of the fact that the counselor/patient relationship is one where the power dynamic is such that coercion - or at least undue influence - is a major concern. I think it's reasonable to have similar concerns with employer/employee relationships.

I couldn't sleep with my patients up there in the frozen north?

We recognize that having the government control us can to some extent improve things.
But I wouldn't draw then line in the same place you would. I don't like the notion that
employees are powerless childlike wards who must be closely regulated & protected.
(Yeah, bub....I'm putting those words in your mouth.) Any time we give gov't more authority
over us, whatever protection you gain will be offset by some loss of liberty. There ain't no
free lunch in politics & law.

 

[Wirey]

Fortunately, we have far more freedom than Canuckistanians.
We needn't adopt such oppressive laws, even if they do serve you.

And who protects you from the horror of poutine, pemmican, & Red Green, eh?

It's a slippery slope, I know, but in my humble opinion (meaning it;'s actual fact) my right to act in a way that causes harm to myself end immediately upon it harming you. If you want to drive like an idiot, go nuts, but do it in the middle of an empty parking lot (a la Walt White). I use that highway to get home with my kids. You want to smoke, have at 'er. Outside. You choose to smoke, you get to suffer.

And what's with the constant jibes at Red Green? If it wasn't for him, Canada would have fallen apart around 1997. Here he is way back in 1980:

[youtube]JJ9yydrnBWI[/youtube]
Red Green On "Smith & Smith" - Gun Safety (1980) - YouTube

 

[Wirey]

I couldn't sleep with my patients up there in the frozen north?

No, we have vision. Sorry.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, we have vision. Sorry.

I have vision too....& dental.

Red Green always struck me as the standard bearer for Canuckistanian non-comedy.
It used to be Wayne & Shuster, but no one under 70 remembers them anymore.
All the funny Canucks moved here, eg, Lorne Greene, Leslie Nielsen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOlb_X7Sgz8

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fortunately, we have far more freedom than Canuckistanians.
We needn't adopt such oppressive laws, even if they do serve you.

And who protects you from the horror of poutine, pemmican, & Red Green, eh?

If the hazard in question was a risk of falling, there would be a normal procedure to go through:

1. If possible, eliminate the hazard: if the work can be done properly at ground level, do it there.
2. If elimination isn't possible, mitigate the hazard to eliminate the risk: if practical, put up railings.
3. If the hazard can't be mitigated or eliminated, reduce the risk as much as practical with training, procedures and personal protective equipment: give the workers fall arrest training, make them wear harnesses, and have them tie off to something.

This is the general process - in the US as well as "Canuckistan" - for dealing with workplace hazards. You say that safety rules for workplaces are appropriate, so why the inconsistency for smoking?

 

[Revoltingest]

If the hazard in question was a risk of falling, there would be a normal procedure to go through:
1. If possible, eliminate the hazard: if the work can be done properly at ground level, do it there.
2. If elimination isn't possible, mitigate the hazard to eliminate the risk: if practical, put up railings.
3. If the hazard can't be mitigated or eliminated, reduce the risk as much as practical with training, procedures and personal protective equipment: give the workers fall arrest training, make them wear harnesses, and have them tie off to something.
This is the general process - in the US as well as "Canuckistan" - for dealing with workplace hazards. You say that safety rules for workplaces are appropriate, so why the inconsistency for smoking?

Inconsistency? Hah! From a mostly penguin who looks like an amoeba?
I see differences.
- Smoking is a known hazard with injury correlated to long term exposure.
- Falling risks relate to momentary lapses in judgement.
- Falling injuries are more immediate.
- Some people like to smoke, but far fewer people like to fall.
Because of these differences, I draw the line of gov't intervention in a different place.

Should it be illegal to live in bear country? It poses a danger to you & the bears.
Do you put workers at risk by having an economy up there where Yogi & Booboo could attack?

 

[Cassiopia]

The argument against that is that you could be putting people in a position of deciding whether to put their health at risk or remain unemployed. In some places, remaining unemployed isn't an option since if you refuse a "reasonable" offer of work, you'll loose benefit/welfare payments. There is also a risk of putting unfair pressure on existing staff if something like this were introduced - they'd all have to be asked if they're willing to work in a smoking environment and saying no could (legitimately or otherwise) put their jobs at risk.

Well where I live workers have rights, which would include the right not to have to work in an environment where they were unwillingly exposed to cigarette smoke. Workers rights are a good thing. Therefore I don't agree that people would be forced to take a job where they would have to be around cigarette smoke.
And even so... There will be some areas where the only local industry may be mining. Would it be unreasonable for people living in such areas to refuse to take a job in the mine on the grounds that it posed an unacceptable health risk?

 

[Mr. Skittles]

Should smoker-only areas in privately owned businesses, e.g. privately owned restaurants and coffee shops, be illegal?

Do you think that the rights to safety of a person who works in such a place should be placed above a smoker's right to consume tobacco in such a setting? Why or why not?

At my hospital you can't smoke on campus. I think at public places where you need to sit down and be around others smokers need to be outside doing their habit instead of inside. The smoke travels and drifts into other peoples space. If I dont smoke but you do why do I have to inhale it?

That is something I'd say

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Inconsistency? Hah! From a mostly penguin who looks like an amoeba?
I see differences.
- Smoking is a known hazard with injury correlated to long term exposure.
- Falling risks relate to momentary lapses in judgement.
- Falling injuries are more immediate.
- Some people like to smoke, but far fewer people like to fall.
Because of these differences, I draw the line of gov't intervention in a different place.

I used to work in a testing lab that used the solvent tricholoroethylene (to test the aggregate in asphalt pavement, you have to dissolve away the asphalt). My friend the propmaker used to wotk with isocyanate-based foam products. Neither of these have immediate risks (well, I wouldn't want to drink either one, but in terms of working with them, I mean); in both cases, their risk comes from long-term exposure, just like tobacco smoke. Both of these products are now severely restricted if not banned outright. Tobacco smoke isn't.

And at least for isocyanates, the "some people like it" argument applies. I can remember my propmaker friend complaining that the less hazardous products he worked with aren't as nice to use as the isocyanate-based ones were.

So... again: how is tobacco smoke different from other workplace hazards?

 

[Revoltingest]

I used to work in a testing lab that used the solvent tricholoroethylene (to test the aggregate in asphalt pavement, you have to dissolve away the asphalt). My friend the propmaker used to wotk with isocyanate-based foam products. Neither of these have immediate risks (well, I wouldn't want to drink either one, but in terms of working with them, I mean); in both cases, their risk comes from long-term exposure, just like tobacco smoke. Both of these products are now severely restricted if not banned outright. Tobacco smoke isn't.

And at least for isocyanates, the "some people like it" argument applies. I can remember my propmaker friend complaining that the less hazardous products he worked with aren't as nice to use as the isocyanate-based ones were.

So... again: how is tobacco smoke different from other workplace hazards?

See my post you just quoted.

We both see similarities, but I also see differences.
And those differences inspire me to oppose banning smoking. It ain't like you're going to present some
absolute & universal standard for workplace regulation....it's all a negotiated thing among the various players.
You're Canuckistanian & I'm Revoltingistanian, so we'll always have different regulatory directions in which we lean.

Btw, as a business owner, I ban smoking by all my workers when on the job. I also ban smoking in some rental buildings.
It's a balancing act.

 

[McBell]

How is it not within reason to ask customers who would want to smoke to sit on the patio?

We live in a wondrous age with patio heaters for when it's cold, misters for when it's hot, and umbrellas and awnings to keep off the sun and rain.

So long as said patio is not designated as the smoking section, right?

 

[Rocky S]

Should smoker-only areas in privately owned businesses, e.g. privately owned restaurants and coffee shops, be illegal?

No not in a privately owned business.

Do you think that the rights to safety of a person who works in such a place should be placed above a smoker's right to consume tobacco in such a setting?

Juts don't' go into a privately owned business that allows it, hence the the "privately owned".

Why or why not?

Because it is a privately owned business. And I believe the second hand smoke thing is blown way out of proportioned in this country. Of course, I am a wildland fire firefighter, so in my profession I cant help but breath smoke, so second hand smoke does not bother me. And most firefighters chuckle a little bit when we hear people claim how dangerous second hand smoke is. Smoke from the deep fryer in a fast food joint is harmful as well, not to mention the other harmful chemicals that one inhales from walking down the street of an urban city. Most of us(firefighters) know it to be propaganda. City clickers lol.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So long as said patio is not designated as the smoking section, right?

No, I think that's fine.

I should probably clarify: I took the OP's "smoker-only areas in privately-owned businesses" to mean:

- a designated area where smoking is *permitted*, not one where it's mandatory.

- an indoor area (i.e. an area *in* a place of business).